Oscillatory behavior of two nonlinear microbial models of soil carbon decomposition
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. A number of nonlinear models have recently been proposed for simulating soil carbon decomposition. Their predictions of soil carbon responses to fresh litter input and warming differ significantly from conventional linear models. Using both stability analysis and numerical simulations, we showed that two of those nonlinear models (a two-pool model and a three-pool model) exhibit damped oscillatory responses to small perturbations. Stability analysis showed the frequency of oscillation is proportional to √ (ϵ −1−1)Ks/Vs in the two-pool model, and to √ (ϵ −1−1)Kl/Vl in the three-pool model, where ϵ is microbial growth efficiency, Ks and Kl are the half saturation constants of soil and litter carbon, respectively, and Vs and Vl are the maximal rates of carbon decomposition per unit of microbial biomass for soil and litter carbon, respectively. For both models, the oscillation has a period between 5 and 15 yr depending on other parameter values, and has smaller amplitude at soil temperatures between 0 °C to 15 °C. In addition, the equilibrium pool sizes of litter or soil carbon are insensitive to carbon inputs in the nonlinear model, but are proportional to carbon input in the conventional linear model. Under warming, the microbial biomass and litter carbon pools simulated by the nonlinear models can increase or decrease, depending whether ϵ varies with temperature. In contrast, the conventional linear models always simulate a decrease in both microbial and litter carbon pools with warming. Based on the evidence available, we concluded that the oscillatory behavior and insensitivity of soil carbon to carbon input in the nonlinear models are unrealistic. We recommend that a better model for capturing the soil carbon dynamics over decadal to centennial timescales would combine the sensitivity of the conventional models to carbon influx with the flexible response to warming of the nonlinear model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Including microbial biomass as an additional pool in the dynamical system leads to unrealistic nonlinear behaviour not supported by the authors' own observations.
“Notice that we do not represent the microbial biomass as an additional pool in our dynamical system because it leads to unrealistic nonlinear behaviour 64 not supported by our own observations.”
From Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage (2015) · cites this paper as [64]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 88
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Nadelhoffer, K. J., Boone, R. D., Bowden, R. D., Canary, J., Kaye, P., Micks, A., Ricca, J. A., Aitkenhead, K., Lajtha, K., and Mc- Dowell, W. H.: The DIRT Experiment: Litter and Root Influences on Forest Soil Organic Matter Stocks and Function, in: Forests in time: the environmental consequences of 1000 years of change in New England, edietd by: Foster, D. and Aber, J., New Haven, Yale University Press, 2004.
- Authors
- Wang, Y. P., Chen, B. C., Wieder, W. R., Luo, Y. Q., Leite, M., Medlyn, B. E., Rasmussen, M., Smith, M. J., Agusto, F. B., & Hoffman, F.
- Affiliations
- CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere (AU)
- NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- University of Toledo (US)
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Austin Peay State University (US)
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Biogeosciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2013-12-16
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1817-1831
- ISSN
- 1726-4170 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2158928879
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 12.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biogeosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (EF-0832-858, 0832858)
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security (EF-0832858)
- U.S. Department of Agriculture (EF-0832858)
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (EF-0832858)
- University of Tennessee, Knoxville (EF-0832858)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/I004165/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
- Keywords
- soil carbon decomposition, oscillatory dynamics, two-pool model, three-pool model, microbial biomass, litter carbon, warming effects, half-saturation constant, microbial growth efficiency, soil carbon dynamics, global warming
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review